Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Intelligence Question

So my last post on Nassim Taleb’s mental retardation has triggered quite a lot of laughs and chuckles, and also some criticism. Some people say I was not rigorous enough when writing about Nassim Taleb’s books.

To those people I say: hold my beer. Seriously, people, this is a blog. A free blog, which I write under a pseudonym. I seek nothing from my writing, besides it being an avenue to make interesting friends. Which I have, dozens of them, and God bless them. But surely in this little place of mine which I offer free of charge, I’m entitled to shit on people for fun once in a while, especially if they’ve given good reason, as Taleb did by saying the most retarded thing that anyone can say: that black overpopulation is not a problem because they’ll turn out just as smart as the Germanic tribes did in post-Roman Europe.

That’ s not just retarded, that’s the most harmful and dangerous thing that you can say, period. The most dire danger to Western Civilization, to our lands, to our families, to our friends, to everything we hold dear, is the demographic replacement of Western populations by immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. Taleb is saying that’s not a problem! Well, fuck Taleb, fuck his books, his goatee, his accent. Fuck his deadlift, his insecurity about his racial background, and everything about him. And fuck you.

And besides, this kind of pedantic arguments about “oh you didn’t spend weeks reading his book to understand the math”, or concern trolling about the effects on group morale of criticizing a man who (to his credit, which I had always given before this week) at least makes a point of looking and sounding like a real man and not a soy-infused mangina, reveal you are the kind of person that Taleb hates. Taleb is a middle-eastern man who, by sheer biology, just can’t stand North-Western European nerds. And to be honest I can relate to that. So at any rate, don’t be a nerd and defend Taleb with nerdy, over-rigorous arguments. I don’t care, and he hates your guts.

Going back to the gist of Taleb’s argument, all he said was a bunch of wrong and disingenuous arguments about the importance of IQ (you can read a good summary here) , all done for the sole purpose of signaling his long dislike of nerds. And again, I can relate. There’s much to dislike about nerds. They are often annoying, and their lack of skill at enjoying the many pleasures of life is *very* harmful for many of us who just want to have a pleasant life and not live a life of drudgery at work. Let alone the harm that nerds do at showering thots and assorted single women with heaps of attention and money. Yes, nerds are bad. If Taleb had just said if he were King he’d randomly kill 5 nerds every fortnight just to make a point, I’d probably have retweeted that with implied approval.

But that’s not what he said. He went on a long obfuscating tirade about IQ being pseudoscience. And yes, IQ fetishism, the idea that IQ is all that ever matters, is weird and wrong, and mostly a vehicle for nerds who have nothing besides IQ going on for them, to feel good about themselves. But so what? Are nerds and their small attempts at mutually licking their wounds and achieving some tiny amount of self-esteem a serious problem for our world?

No, not even close. The real problem in our world is that high-IQ people, not just nerds, but just basically everybody half-functional, is failing to produce children, leaving a huge demographic vacuum which greedy business-owners and evil politicians are using to import dumb and hostile foreigners into our lands. *That* is the problem. And in our modern world, where the rights of ethnic peoples to their own homelands on purely ethnic and historical grounds is not accepted (because Nazis), in our modern scientistic modern world where the only acceptable public arguments must be written in the form of formal science, the only effective, true, empirically provable, and most importantly, legal argument to oppose the influx of millions of dumb and hostile immigrants into our lands, is the biological basis of IQ, and the different distribution of IQ between racial groups.

I wish it weren’t so. I wish the French could just say that France belongs to them and their posterity because they freaking say so, and everyone else will be expelled or killed. I wish White Americans could say they colonized and developed the continent, so it belongs to them, period. Talking about IQ is just a roundabout way of saying that dumb and hostile foreigners don’t belong to our countries. It has the obvious pitfall that East Asians are even higher-IQ than Whites, and yet nobody wants 100 million Chinese to immigrate to their countries.

Yes, it would be much better if we had solid measures of not only intelligence, but creativity, integrity, decisiveness, leadership abilities, and whatnot. If we had, we’d surely find out that different ethnic groups have different distributions of every trait. We could even use them to define the national character of many countries, and perhaps plausibly use that definition to set a psychological legal standard for the demographics a country wants to maintain. Perhaps we’ll get there some day. But we’re not there yet.

All we have is IQ, which individually tells you indeed very little about how useful a man is going to be for a particular task, but when averaged over populations tells you if a place is a shithole full of dumb people, or it’s a civilized and mildly pleasant place. IQ does an *exceptional* job at predicting that. Japan is nice. Denmark is nice. Morocco is not nice. Black Africa is awful. You may not like China, but it’s orders of magnitude more pleasant to live in than India.

So again, I understand all the criticisms about IQ itself, or about IQ-fetishism, or about nerds in general. I get it. I really do. My IQ is nothing special, I’m no nerd, I do my deadlifts myself. But that’s completely besides the point. The fight right now is for every civilized country to defend itself and its people. It’s a tough fight, and right now we’re losing it. Nerds are part of my people. Taleb, and the Africans he is so “sensitive” abut are not. A time will come to de-emphasize the importance of IQ and all that. But now it’s not that time.

Nassim Taleb is Retarded

Happy New Year folks, welcome to the 8th (!) year of Bloody Shovel. Let me start this sure to be eventful year with one of these posts which just need writing. A quick internet search didn’t come out with any article with this title; so if I’m lucky this post will at some point become viral on Google. You think Taleb is retarded? You heard this exact phrasing here first.

What am I talking about? Most of you should know who Nassim Taleb is; a finance man turned maverick public intellectual by virtue of a book, called the Black Swan, which basically saved all the western financial establishment from blame about the great financial crisis of 2008. If you read Steve Sailer you very much knew that all those Mexicans buying real estate with no down payments were going to unleash a subprime mortage crisis at some point. Not so! Said Taleb: that was a Black Swan.

A what? Some completely unpredictable scenario, a massive statistical outlier, he meant. He then colored the theory with a lot of fancy math. All those financial traders in Wall Street then could finally look themselves at the mirror again and not feel like evil failures. “It wasn’t our fault! It was unpredictable! Look at all that fancy math in the book. Only a genius like Taleb could understand that stuff”. It helped that Taleb is a Brown Man; hence a genius by default in our modern culture.

I know nothing of Taleb’s theories; although people who I respect intellectually, such as Eric Falkenstein, have written at length that they aren’t buying them. On the other side I see thousands upon thousands of bugmen and cucks who have nothing but praise for the swarthy bearded brown dude who likes to talk like an Italian mafioso because he’s convinced himself that being born close to the Mediterranean makes one white.

I could be wrong and the guy is actually a genius. But the geniuses I respect have a habit of not saying retarded things; at least not in public and when sober. That is not something that applies to Taleb anymore. One could read with some interest his stuff about finance math or “antifragility”, but now Taleb has come out as a full-fledged retard by saying what amounts (in my book) to the most retarded claim anyone can claim.

Taleb went on a Twitter rant (then about how IQ is a “pseudoscientific swindle”). His observation was based on his experience with “quants”, high-IQ math people who work for financial firms. He found them to be good at numbers but lacking at other skills, e.g. LARPing like a New York downtown mafioso or taking instagram pics doing low-weight deadlifts.

Now, to be fair to the guy; he’s right there. IQ explains some things. But it doesn’t explain personality, drive, extraversion, focus, dominance; a lot of stuff. But it doesn’t have to. Quants are quants. If he found them to be bad at making money in Wall Street; well maybe making money in Wall Street is not just about IQ. Big deal.

But IQ is real all the same. All else equal, a higher IQ is a desirable trait in any living thing. A high IQ may not guarantee success at any particular endeavor, but a low IQ absolutely guarantees failure at pretty much any advanced skill.

But of course everybody knows that. Which is why nobody really finds IQ to be controversial in normal life. Yes, it’s better to be smart than to be not smart. But to be smart, but a pussy, or a coward, or annoying, or just weird in personality is a bad thing. Nobody contests that.

IQ and psychometrics in general are only controversial, only a topic of discussion when applied to groups. Most importantly, to racial groups. That’s the only one reason why anybody objected to IQ research. To be put it even more clearly, the only reason IQ is controversial is that black people test low in IQ tests. And that’s why Taleb *had* to come out and say, oh, saying black people have low IQ on average is *insensitive*. After all, northern Europeans weren’t rich until after 1600.

Letting alone the point that the Chartres Cathedral was up by 1220; the very simple point that Taleb here is ignoring is this thing called genetics. Surely those “Meds” he feels so proud of (after all, the concept allows him to claim the glory of the Roman Empire, instead of accepting that the Levant has been a complete backwater for 2500 years) are genetically quite close to those Northern Europeans who, besides beating Roman legions pretty much all the time, were indeed not living in societies as complex as those of Southern Europe or the Middle East. Germanic and Celtic tribes even spoke closely related languages to Greece and Rome.

Not something that Africans can say; they’re the most distant race to Caucasians (and Asians) that lives on earth. And late last year we found very very interesting data on their genetic make up.

We estimate that individuals in two African populations have 6 − 8% ancestry through admixture from an unidentified archaic population that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans 500 thousand year ago.

Does Taleb know about this? Does he know about anything? Of course not. He makes a living by selling books to the soul-less bugmen in the finance industry; and he won’t be able to be able to keep being called to TV if he can’t claim to be part of the Bioleninism racket by hating on white people at regular intervals. He may not like being brown (half his waking hours are spent in loud reminders that he’s not an Arab), but he surely enjoys the privilege of not looking white.

Interview on Bioleninism

A few weeks ago, a great artist who runs the blog Parallax Optics was kind enough to ask me for an interview on Bioleninism, to follow up on a great piece he published recently where he interviewed the man responsible for the Twitter account Woke Capital. That interview was great, and I had never done an interview before, so I thought it could be a good idea to try this new format. As it happened, the interview went great, and I very much enjoyed the process.

What follows is the whole text of the interview for those who missed it up at Parallax’s. Let me use this chance to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and happy year end holidays. 2018 has been a quite eventful year. Hopefully it has been good for you personally as well (unlikely if you’re invested in the stock market, but nobody’s perfect). A lot has been going on in the reactionary sphere, much of it good. Bioleninism has become a widely known concept. Here’s for a great 2019.


Bioleninism has widely been acknowledged as perhaps the most important contribution to reactionary discourse in recent years. It represents a coming together of several strands of your political analysis / theory. How did you first arrive at the concept of Bioleninism, and what specific influences / texts helped shape the theory?

Well, it’s been a year now, and my episodic memory is pretty bad, so I can’t really trace my thought process that clearly. I remember I had been discussing with some fellow reactionaries about the “Crazy Glue” concept, the question of what on earth it is that sticks the many different parts of the modern left together. The coinage comes from Steve Sailer, and his idea was that the different factions of the left, the “Coalition of the fringes” he calls them, are united by hatred/envy of white people, especially white men. I tended to agree with that formulation, but it’s very rare that I disagree with Steve Sailer at all.

This fellow reactionary, though, pointed out that hatred only takes you so far, you can’t really run a political coalition on just hatred. You must deliver some goods, even if abstract. The way he put it is that the coalition of the fringes is united by their very reasonable assumption that whatever social status they enjoy today in Western society is due to political power of Progressivism; and that if Progressivism were to fall, they’d all be back picking cotton, or barefoot in the kitchen, or freezing in the shtetl. It is this rational fear that keeps strange people like gays and Muslims together on the same side of the political divide.

It made a lot of sense, and it got me thinking. Not all leftists hate white people per se; even if they do today, I remember a time when they didn’t. They could feel some envy and resentment, but hatred? After all, what is hatred? Hatred like any emotion is motivated by something. Hate is useful when directed towards targets which you can fight and plausibly win. There’s no point in hating someone who can crush you and make your life miserable. So, hatred towards white people today seems to have been orchestrated from above, it’s the result of a political campaign. That got me thinking about what kind of power or mechanism got this coalition together; the history behind the Left. That has long been one of my core interests.

I also remembered 10 years ago when I used to read Lawrence Auster’s (RIP) blog. He used to have a commenter, a Canadian anarchist Jew, who would write to Auster and tell him how he got Muslim associations to sign up for gay marriage and other leftist causes, which had to be completely abhorrent to any Muslim. But he did, in a very business-like way.

At the time I was listening to the Revolutions Podcast, which is somewhat pozzed, of course, but explains in a very realistic way the complete and utter mess that liberal politics was in the early 19th century in Europe; how every little splinter group was out there fighting for himself, with no organization or loyalty whatsoever. I also had in mind some stuff I’d been reading on old Chinese imperial politics, how the court used eunuchs and minorities to keep the very fragile imperial governance working. The collapse of imperial politics in 1911 led to another complete mess as the Chinese gentry failed to build a cohesive movement, and China remained divided until the half-assed Leninism of the Kuomintang, and later the proper Leninism of the Communist Party, built a cohesive state by privileging the unprivileged.

So, comparing in my head the experience of building a workable polity in China from scratch, with how the left evolved in the West since 1950, two words just came to me. Biological Leninism. I put that as a title and started writing my post. I write like Houellebecq writes: no plot, no plan, just start writing semi-unconsciously and see what comes out of it. Sometimes it works great; other times I just start to ramble and have to rewrite again and again. It took me months to finish that one, and I was not too satisfied with how it came out. But it was very well received, which was great.

Central to Bioleninism, is the insight that humans are hardwired to seek status more than they seek happiness / comfort. Therefore, as a powerholder, your best strategy to ensure ongoing loyalty is to promise individuals / groups an uplift in status, tied to the success of the Party, which exceeds what they would have ‘naturally’ achieved within a merit based social order. Can you expand on the role of status as a currency within the Bioleninist system?

Status is well understood, we all know how it works, as it’s the basic input of social life. But it’s not a very well defined term, there’s still work to do there. Status basically means whatever motivates people in any society once they have ensured the basics of survival. You could define it as “that which makes people want to become your associate and give you preferential treatment”. The particulars depend on the culture you live in. If you live in a commercial society, status is mostly about money. If you live in a hunting band, it’s mostly about hunting ability. If you live in a magical cult, it’s mostly about ability to summon the spirits. If you live in a communist society, it’s mostly about political favor. And so on.

If you’re King, who do you want as minister? The Duke of Orleans, who has more money than you do and a plausible claim to the throne if (God forbid) something was to happen to you? Hell no, you want a guy who is going to follow your orders, someone reliably loyal. And who is going to follow your orders? Somebody who has no better options than following your orders. It’s quite simple.

If you’re in a free capitalist society, with freedom to acquire and dispose of wealth, status is going to be linked with the ability to earn wealth in the market. That is not a good situation to be in if you’re the King; you basically have no power over people’s behavior if the status assigning mechanism goes through the economy and not the state. Over time, the states of the world figured this out, and either went Leninist, thus abolishing the market altogether and controlling access to status from above; or they went hybrid, like in the West. The West allows a private economy, through which a lot of status is assigned; but the economy is heavily regulated, so the state gets a say in who gets what amount of money. And of course, there’s also a wide propaganda system which includes the press, mass media and education. What we call the Cathedral (or the Polygon or whatever), in short. We can also just call it The Left.

The Left isn’t formally the state, it’s its own network which overlaps heavily with the permanent arms of the state proper (i.e. the bureaucracy) but is also larger than the state. It also spills over to other entities which aren’t formally part of the state, but which are under its influence. Say education. Some of it is part of the state, i.e. public, but a big chunk is private. It doesn’t matter, the social networks of public education workers are connected to private education workers, and so they all have the same opinions, marry each other, promote each other, etc. The same applies to the media, and increasingly to sheer capitalism companies, as we are seeing with Woke Capital. Managers of big companies have been integrated in the same social networks as the bureaucracy and so they are basically the same social class. Again, they marry each other, have the same opinions, etc.

A lot of critics have said that Bioleninism is not real, the most wealthy and highest status people are still white men, black people are still poorer on average, etc. And of course, to the extent that in the West we still allow market forces, we still have a merit-based allocation of status. But everywhere else, wherever the Cathedral has any decision power: in public propaganda, in entertainment, in government hiring, in education: all of those are completely committed in giving status to everyone but white straight healthy men, in direct proportion to how different they are from white straight men. They give status in the form of hyping up in propaganda and cultural broadcasts they control (black surgeons on TV, female pilots, women with hijab in fashion ads, black history month, gay pride, whatever), and in preferential hiring for highly-paid sinecures and positions of influence. Again, that used to be mostly getting hired for some make-work job in the bureaucracy, or some professorship of Grievance Studies, but now they’re increasingly moving into the corporate world, HR being a well-known reservoir for politically connected people.

Does Bioleninism function primarily by raising the status of low-status groups as a whole, or only the members of these groups who ‘officially’ join / pledge loyalty to the Party? Do you perceive a two-tier effect, whereby it raises the status of those who join the Party, but those that possess the inherent qualities of the group also get raised up / receive the benefits of protected characteristics, as part of a halo effect?

It does both, indeed. Black history month isn’t about any individual black person; gay pride isn’t about any prominent gay Party member. But the Left doesn’t have infinite resources. It can’t give a job to every black person in America, let alone on Earth. It can barely scrap enough to give each woman an Obamaphone to get her to vote on election day. But that’s the good part of the trick: you don’t need to actually pay cash to every single voter, in a Bueno de Mesquita sort of system. You can pay them with propaganda, telling them white people owe them because of slavery or colonialism or implicit bias, praising them 24/7, teaching in college about some Timbuktu pile of mud being the world’s first University, or women having invented whatever. You as a person of a low-performance group may not have a fancy job and make 6 figures, but the people with the megaphones are shitting on your enemies on TV, and that sort of effort merits loyalty. You’re certainly gonna vote for that guy and not for the guy who says you should be picking cotton or eating sand in Arabia. It’s a modern twist on the idea that the meek will inherit the kingdom of God. And who knows, maybe some day you do get that fancy job, or if you’re eloquent you can leverage your oppressed status© into YouTube fame or something. Maybe a seat in Congress!

You have described Bioleninism as a top down phenomenon, just like Leninism. Can you expand on the mechanics / incentive dynamics of the High and Low against the Middle, and why the Cathedral selects for loyalty over competence / ingenuity?

In any hierarchy, your enemy is the guy immediately below you. Because he wants your place, and he’s close enough to come get it. A good example of this is dynastic politics. Who’s the king most afraid of? His brothers, as they could take his place. The Ottomans famously had a period during which they enforced fratricide before any succession. The very existence of brothers was too big a risk. Chinese dynasties alternated between sending brothers far away to the provinces and keeping them under a form of house arrest in the capital.

To the extent that keeping your own position (your social status) depends on the loyalty of your underlings, everyone, everywhere, selects for loyalty over competence. No manager is going to hire a guy who’s going to take his place and make him lose salary or status in the company hierarchy. No company owner is going to hire a guy who is likely to end up starting a competing company and put him out of business. No way. He can be a genius who’ll make all the money in the world; but as a manager a subordinate’s loyalty is the foremost concern. Only once loyalty is secure you can start to select for competence. So again, the ideal subject is not a genius. It’s a genius who has nowhere else to go. There’s a curve between loyalty and competence but it bends to the side of loyalty. It’s better to have a mediocre 50% guy (provided he gets the job done) who’s gonna stick with you, than a smart 70% guy who’s gonna run to your competition. I’m sure many readers have seen versions of this phenomenon happening in their workplaces.

Same reason why every housewife wants a 40-year-old Honduran nanny instead of a 20-year-old Ukrainian, too. Given how human sociability works it’s a miracle that competence gets rewarded at all. Once I understood this I stopped wondering why it took so long for humanity to develop science and industry.

How does the problem of Imperium In Imperio animate Bioleninism? To elaborate further, Moldbug discusses at length the problem of divided sovereignty – divided Power does not want to stay divided, it has a centrifugal attraction, pulling it back together, like the shattered pieces in Terminator 2. I wondered what your thoughts were on the problem of divided Power / Imperium In Imperio specifically in relation to the structure of Bioleninism: how the problem / fact of the divided, mendacious, un-formalized nature of Power in the West gave rise to something that looks like / is structured as Bioleninism?

It animates Leninism per se. In a way, it’s the fundamental problem of politics. The way I described it in the original post was as the vengeance of Absolutism in an era of demotic politics. Power doesn’t want to be divided. Power wants to be absolute. That’s not only because there exist sociopaths among us; there’s a perfectly innocent yet powerful motivation for power to want to be absolute. See, in my view the fundamental law of the universe is status-conservation. People don’t want to lose status. Hence the guy in power doesn’t want to lose power. Ever. And his children don’t want to lose status either. In order to achieve status conservation for himself and his family, he pretty much needs to have power forever. In order to do that you have to stop other people from taking you out; which is hard to do, as they also want power themselves, again, sometimes out of sheer greed, but sometimes because they need to hold a more defensible position in order to achieve status conservation for their families. So, given enough time, power always tends towards concentration.

Given the restrictive mess that was feudalism, Absolutism was a way of doing away with all restrictions to monarchical power. When lesser nobles, merchants and country lawyers beat absolutism in Europe, they came up with liberal constitutions which made the division of powers into the basic principle of government. The result was completely unworkable, any decision by one power got blocked or stalled by the others. But given that all the powers of the state were occupied by the same sort of people (i.e. country lawyers), things got done by informal networking. I’m quite sure that this informal bypassing of legal limitations on power was what motivated Marxists to focus so much on “class consciousness”. It’s a really powerful thing, and Marxism-Leninism learned the lesson and engineered their own ruling class by giving poor people a class consciousness of their own. The Soviet Union and China then formalized the whole thing with a Communist Party, which controlled every single state organism and also gave privileged access to power for people of working class and peasant pedigree. Every single part of the government was controlled overtly or covertly by a party cell, and you just couldn’t get to high places in the Communist Party if your family was high status in 1910. Communists had a double layer system to make sure that central commands always went through. Power wasn’t divided.

Going back to the last question; Bioleninism is a top-down phenomenon insofar as it’s basically a personnel policy. Leninism in general is, fundamentally, a particular way of hiring people for your organization, and Bioleninism a variant of that. But Leninism didn’t come to exist in a top-down way; it was the result of a viral, memetic evolutionary process where power-hungry people tried to come up with effective ways of capturing more and more power. After a lot of trial and error, Leninism came up with class-struggle, and that not being a workable strategy in the wealthy West, slowly people started scraping the bottom of the barrel, hiring and promoting spinsters and gays and blacks and Muslims and whoever was unhappy with their status in the wealthiest and happiest society in human history.

Now every organ of state power, private corporations, religious denominations and every branch of the military, has a bunch of blacks and lesbians and transsexuals as political commissars to ensure that any order from the movement gets implemented faithfully. How is that different from Communist Party cells?

It’s less formalized than classical Leninism because it didn’t arise out of a complete break up of the old society, like in 1917 Russia. Bioleninism just slowly creeped little by little and colonized existing institutions without destroying them outright. And yes, they’ve had plenty of elite help, and increasingly so, but the elite didn’t come up with the process itself as a sort of Elders of Zion conspiracy. These kinds of processes can’t be accurately described as either top-down or bottom-up. It’s a combination of both: people on the bottom are trying out ways to agitate, the organizations which are able to command loyalty survive, while others don’t, in a classical bottom-up evolutionary process. People on top are watching for good organizations to invest in, so to speak, and they will integrate those which have survived the bottom-up competition into their top-down machines. So, there’s a bilateral flow of interaction concerning what kind of political organization is going to work better.

The Coalition of the Fringes, mobilized by the Elites, self-conceptualizes / propagandizes as a Coalition of the Oppressed. How does Bioleninism relate to SJW activism, victimhood culture (sensitivity to slight combined with appeal to authority) and slave morality, as historically conceived?

There’s a great article by this blogger called Devin Helton where he talks about “offense-bullying”. In the old days, peasants were meek people whotrash talked each other constantly; they had thick skins. It was the aristocrats who were extremely thin skinned and challenged you to a death-match (a duel) if you went so far as to diss their choice of shoes, or whatever. They were full of righteous anger at any slight to their honor. Interestingly, there’s an old quip of Chinese imperial bureaucrats, you may kill a bureaucrat, but you cannot humiliate him. They meant it. 士可殺不可辱.

Why were they like that? Because they could be. Being thin skinned is a signal of high-status, basically. An aristocrat must signal that he’s high-status, and thus untouchable, by making a fuss over anything, lest the peasants forget whom they’re talking to, the anger signaling confidence that you could make good on your threats by having access to higher authorities, or just more armed men. We all know that person who goes around saying “Do you know who I am?” in a menacing tone.

It’s no wonder that it’s now Bioleninist troopers who go around wailing in righteous anger at cross-dressers being refused to go to the female toilet, or packs of young, or tall, fit black men complaining that white women look at them in fear when they’re alone with them in an elevator. What they’re doing is signaling access to power, e.g. the ability to get physically violent without police intervention. Why are Antifa so in-your-face evil, shouting menacing slogans with a grin on their faces, and moving around the streets like they own the place? Because they effectively do, to the extent that law enforcement has double standards and they basically go unpunished.

They play this double game where they appeal for Christian charity (slave morality, if you will) from biologically high-functioning people, but at the same time use the support of state violence to engage in open extortion and random violence. Christian charity of course was its own power-play against the Classical-era pagans, who weren’t into charity at all; Greco-Romans worshipped strength and heroism. Being nice to children or slaves or lepers was, besides a reasonable way of seeking recruits, also a way of shitting on everything that the Romans thought holy. Now the (modern equivalent of) slaves and the lepers are asking for more than charity, they want power itself, and who’s going to come out and argue against that?

“Point deer, make horse” is the near epiphanic, central pivot in the first Bioleninism essay. How does your reading of Eastern thought, politics and history influence your understanding of Western thought, politics and history, and vice versa?

I would say my experience with Eastern peoples helped me in two ways. First, it gave me the detachment to look at my own history and culture in a more objective way. A great way of getting to really understand a concept is to try to explain it to a random Chinese person. You need to translate it into their language and explain the context in a way that makes sense to someone who shares absolutely no part of your cultural background. It’s hard, but it’s also very liberating. It forces you to come up with a narrative which is both simple enough to keep someone’s attention, and makes actual logical sense, but it has to be almost pure logic. The only words you can use are those that are very down to earth, common-sensical, limited to universal human nature. Short words any random guy who hasn’t read the same books you have can understand. A random Oriental doesn´t know anything about Abrahamic religion or liberalism, so throwing words like “reason” and “liberty” around makes little sense to him. At most, if he’s college educated he’s learnt a few sentences to pass the college entrance exam, but he’s long forgotten it.

The other way, and one trait of Asians I really like, is just how cynical and goal-oriented they are. To a large extent, discussing politics is just not done at all in Asia, unless you happen to work in politics or the media. That was boring, but also refreshing, coming from a European environment where everybody feels they must have a strong opinion on everything, from the price of bread to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any abstract discussion of politics or philosophy in Asia is usually derided as a sophomoric attempt at showing off. Try to talk about anything not involving immediate money or gossip and you’ll soon get interrupted. “So what?”, “Your point?”, “What’s it to you?”. A common Japanese quip when you use some uncommon word is, 言いたいだけでしょ“you just want to say that word”, implying your vanity makes you feel good at using weird words that make you feel superior or high-status, but they’ve got you all figured out.

And they’re right. It got me thinking. What’s the point of all those conversations which don’t concern personal, immediate interests? It didn’t take long from that realization to finding signalling theory, and suddenly it all made sense.

Note that most of what we call Asian “philosophy” is also very down-to-earth, preoccupied with how to run a government, or how to live a good and content life. That’s just how the people are, and I still believe that they are genetically incapable of caring about metaphysics and the pointless abstraction it so often encourages. I like that trait in them, but I also think it’s deleterious to their building strong, cohesive polities. It’s not that they don’t ever peddle in bullshit or that they can’t be brainwashed; the suicidal Imperial Japanese Army and Maoism obviously happened, but Asians are always only so far from caring about their own personal interest that they need really tight, often cruel, discipline to keep them going. The old guilt/shame dichotomy doesn’t quite encompass it, but it’s not wrong.

How is Bioleninism to be distinguished from Tokenism – how do Bioleninists reify / exercise their claim on Power in a way which is qualitatively / structurally distinct from political mascotism?

I get this objection a lot. “Blacks or transsexuals or whatever don’t actually have high status. They’re just given powerless sinecures and it’s still white men calling the shots.” Well I wouldn’t mind one of those powerless sinecures with six-figure salaries for myself and my buddies. And one wonders how the demographics of the ruling class look in places where Bioleninism has advanced the most, like the USA, if you accounted for Jewish people. How many non-Jewish, non-gay white men are in positions of power in the USA? Not a lot, and its decreasing fast. 

Mascotism does happen but it’s not a stable strategy. At some point, younger generations are going to ask for and get actual positions of influence; and we are seeing this right now. No lack of female CEOs, of black congresswomen. The USA just got its first Somali. To some extent Bioleninist commissars are all likely to become tokens or puppets of some sort; but that’s only because they are dumb and lazy by nature. At some point we’ll get a high-energy black Muslim woman and it’s gonna be bad.

What confluence of political factors / dynamics served to give Bioleninists the “whip-hand” in contemporary Western societies?

Well, basically it was the defeat of Communism in the West. The “invisible hand of power-grabbing” (invisible hand of politics I called it in the third essay) came up with Socialism early on in the West, during the Industrial Revolution, using the (quite reasonable) resentment of the working class of the time. When that didn’t quite work out, after the working classes lost their resentment once mild-socialism became prevalent in the 1930s, and the boom times of WW2 made everyone rich, any aspiring agitator had to come up with some other resentful group. The first one was women; that had already arisen in the 19th century, and they got the vote mostly before WW2, but feminism was only developed thoroughly after WW2, when socialism wasn’t selling well, and the sexual revolution was throwing women into the open sexual market and the workforce, creating industrial amounts of usable resentment.

Gays and other sexual deviants also came out the sexual revolution, and they’re resentful by the mere fact of existing. I’ve written extensively about that: it must be hard when all the people you’re really attracted to find you disgusting.

And then obviously the foreigners. Third worlders came to the West to supply the cheap labor that the mild-socialist policies of Western governments were supposed to abolish. They soon became very useful to leftist political machines. Foreigners by definition are a low-status group in any society; unless the king protects them personally. That happened often in history; it’s basically the reason Jews still exist at all. Foreigners are weak, awkward, and so are loyal to whoever has the power to protect them.

Once all these groups were in place and had been agitated properly by the press and the academic establishment, basing a political coalition on giving official status to these people against the majority of, well, normal people, wasn’t a hard decision to make.

Do you regard the intersectional tensions at the heart of the Coalition of the Fringes as ideologically / politically stable in the long-term; or do you perceive the hotbed of contradictions as too inherently unstable to endure / govern as Power becomes further consolidated in Bioleninist hands?

I get that a lot. “Muslims and gays can’t get along, come on”. Well, they seem to be getting along quite happily in Leftist parties all over the West. I do imagine they’ll end up in conflict, but only after they’ve seized complete power. When all leftist parties in the West have become basically leaders of one-party states, then sure, the factions will start fighting each other. But in a one-party state you can unleash violence very easily. The early Soviets fought each other a lot too. Then they were all purged. And then purged again. And then Stalin came and unleashed the mother of all purges. I don’t know if Biolenin or Biostalin will be brown gay men or black lesbian disabled women; but I imagine violence will happen in due course. But they have to win first. While they’re still following the rules of liberal democracy they will stay put. They have to.

The concept of Bioleninism is simultaneously Essentialist, it draws on the explanatorily power of aggregate HBD forces; and Constructivist, it explains how political coalitions are socially constructed according to group-incentive dynamics. How do you conceive the inter-relationship of Essentialism and Constructivism in relation to Bioleninism, and which is the more dominant tendency in your thought?

I’m not an academic person but I think this is not a helpful way to put it. If there are two different academic cliques, one the “essentialist” and the other the “constructivist”, and I have to choose which one Bioleninism belongs to; then we’re doing something wrong. This is not a useful game to play; unless I’m gonna get tenure and a six-figure salary for choosing the right team? Am I?

I’m both Essentialist and Constructivist. I think reality is a thing, it’s out there, and it’s the same for everyone. That may map to “essentialism”. There’s real stuff out there and it has properties. IQ is real. Race is real.

But again, I’m a linguist. And language is constructed; it’s the result of social agreement. The only reason the sound string /dog/ forms the word “dog”, and that the word “dog” is used to refer to a certain animal is perfectly arbitrary and can be perfectly called a social construction. Every single word, every single part of grammar, every single linguistic pattern is like that. Every single “concept” is like that. It’s not completely arbitrary, and world languages have much in common, because there’s only so many ways to use language to form a society which is conducive to human existence. So, there’s an evolutionary process limiting how arbitrary social constructions can be. That applies to language (most languages – but not all! – have categories such as noun and verb), and to any other social institution. No human society that we know of (before modern Anglosphere) has had 20 “genders”.

To a large extent you could say that reality is non-constructed, but human perception, or at least public signals of perception (which is all we know. No matter how many MRIs you take, you can’t really know what’s going on inside somebody’s head, you only know reliably observed behavior), is all “constructed”. If only because going against social consensus is likely to get you killed or ostracized at some point, so you better follow the flow.

Then again, all political systems based their rhetoric on being objectively aligned with reality, following natural law of some sort. Constructivism as a theory arose as a way for the left to undermine Western society. It worked because constructivism points at a very real phenomenon: the fact that human knowledge is mostly mediated by other humans and not the result of any direct contact with nature. The right wing to a large extent is still trying to fight that fight, so they’re still pushing objectivism.

But that fight was lost many, many years ago. I’m one of the few, or at least one of the first, rightist writers who have been using constructivist arguments. Not only because they’re true; but also because they’re useful. Useful to undermine the present power structure. Let’s face it: we are not in power anymore. We’ve lost. Decades ago. Leftists are in power, they have a solid (if extremely flawed) theory behind them, and constructivist arguments can help destroy that.

You have been amongst the most insistent and articulate advocates of the need for a New Religion as a central / system of Schelling Point/s around which reaction could begin to build a parallel status system / coherent opposition to Bioleninism / progressivism. Which religions do you see as primary candidates to reboot, or would you prefer to work from a tabula rasa?

My idea was to start from scratch. Hence “a new religion”. I do understand now that it’s much easier to just co-opt or make a fork of an existing religion: that way you can attract a lot of people without implying they were completely wrong all their lives. But I honestly don’t know what’s going to work. At the beginning I thought the success of a religion depended on the ideas, it was a problem of ‘design’. I now tend to think that a sufficiently charismatic (and evil) prophet can get literally anything running, by sheer force of personality and tight discipline, however absurd the ideas may be.

That said, I’m just not a very religious person, and neither a very social person, so I probably won’t be involved with any of that. But at some point, I’m quite sure it will happen. It may be Zensunni, or the actual rebirth of a Deus Vult Crusader Catholic Church. Or something completely new.

If Bioleninism continues to proceed unabated, what do you see as its failure mode? Will it die of inherent contradictions, as Marxists fantasized capitalism would; or collapse of internal entropy and get overrun by external enemies; or ease up on adverse counter-selection dynamics, let competent people run things again, and transition to a neo-feudal oligarchy; or do you have faith in narratives of decentralization, fragmentation, Patchwork or neocolonialism; or do we face the eternal current year, on repeat, forever… or perhaps you envisage an End Game even more hideous than the possibilities I’ve highlighted above?

The scary thing about Bioleninism is that it has no alternative. Leninism existed for decades in Russia and China; but the obvious material success of the capitalist West provided a clear alternative. And at the point where internal contradictions went too far, Leninist countries could always say: fuck this, let’s just go Western. And that’s exactly what Soviet Union elites did. China took a middle way, but it basically dismantled much of its own system. Xi Jinping has been working hard to rebuild it, but he doesn’t have the old proletariat to man his system, so he’s basically running it on enforced sycophancy and internet surveillance. It doesn’t look very sustainable and cohesive to me, at the very least after the man dies.

Bioleninism has no alternative. Nobody in the West can get fed up with Bioleninist dysfunction point at one country and say: let’s do that! Well, there’s Japan and other wealthy places, which have not inflicted third world mass-immigration on themselves. But Japan still has big problems with feminism and sexual deviants. The fertility rate tells you it’s not a healthy society. And it just passed a law to finally bring mass migration of third worlders. At any rate, neither Japan nor anyone else has a solid, working non-liberal political theory to base their politics on.

On the right we may have many ideas of what to do, but we don’t have a clear, existing, successful example to point out to normies as a thing to emulate. Leninism died because Russians did have that. Let’s do America. We don’t have that. At some point Soviet Leninism became lower status than American capitalism. Right now, Bioleninism is the most high-status system in the world.

Taken to its logical conclusion, it will die of internal contradictions. As I said previously, at some point a Biostalin is going to come up and start purging people. Once he has complete and uncontested power he may change the Bioleninist theory by fiat to let competent people back into positions of power. At least the minimum number of competent people necessary to keep things running for another day. That’s a likely scenario. Slow, very slow decline. Collapse is also possible: Stalin was, after all, a very gifted man, and odds are the Bioleninists won’t be able to come up with one.

Then again, we might also see an ersatz Bioleninist rise to power. One of those Scott Alexander guys, who are perfectly smart and healthy straight white men but completely exaggerate any teenage trauma into a full-fledged mental illness, if not outright cause themselves a mental illness through excessive psychiatric medication, in order to fit in with the wider Bioleninist coalition of actually innately dysfunctional people. It’s no coincidence that reports of gender dysphoria and myriad mental illness are growing fast among young white people. Especially women: they know what our society demands, where status is, so they adapt themselves to it. Blacks and Muslims will protest that these guys are fake, that white people are all evil no matter how fucked up in the head, but odds are they’d lose in a frontal confrontation. So, look forward to the Dictatorship of depressed incel programmers. I’m only half-joking.

As for Patchwork and total fragmentation, the idea is cool and all, but I don’t see how the military equilibrium works for that. Ethnogenesis is in the end mostly a function of military technology. Fragmentation would be bloody, very bloody. And at the end of that war, I don’t think we’d get all that many polities after all. But I could be wrong.

Parts 12 and 3 of Bioleninism can be read at Bloody Shovel.

China’s CRISPR babies might have wasted our last chance

Yesterday I woke up to this piece of news:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612458/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/

Chinese Scientists are Creating CRISPR Babies.

Hilarity ensued. This guy, Hè Jiànkuí 贺建奎, professor at China’s Southern University of Science and Technology, with good, manly posture, was bringing the future to our time.

I was feeling weird already. But then this other bombshell happens.

https://www.apnews.com/4997bb7aa36c45449b488e19ac83e86d

Babies are already born! Twin girls, Lulu and Nana. Which are quite standard names for Chinese girls today, even though that sort of name would’ve sound like prostitutes 50 years ago. But I digress.

The mad scientist who had created the first CRISPR babies out of the blue, in secret, just like that! Had set up a Youtube channel where, in lousy English, he explained his whole project. Look at him here. His posture is not so good in the videos.

His procedure involved knocking down the CCR5 gene, supposedly giving immunity to AIDS. The guy went out of his way to denounce the use of gene editing (he branded his procedure as “gene surgery”. I’m just this doctor doing surgery, you see) for purposes of improving IQ. “That should be banned!” he said.

Oh man, we were just getting excited at the possibilities here. Immunity to AIDS? Getting AIDS is not a real concern for most people at all. Who cares about homosexuals really. Why is this guy using what might turn to be the most consequential technology in the history of mankind just to make life easier for homosexuals? And why is he bragging in English on Youtube? Which is banned in China. And why is his email in Gmail? Which is banned in China? Isn’t this some kind of secret Chinese government project to produce SuperHan?

Short answer is, no. Long answer is: we were all getting excited as state media (People’s Daily, The Paper, etc.) reported on the news on a fairly neutral tone. Those pieces were deleted a few hours later, as it surfaced that He Jiankui didn’t make the CRISPR babies through his university research. Oh no, he had gone rogue, cooperating with a hospital called Harmonicare, 深圳和美妇儿科医院. A maternity hospital, owned by the infamous, and I mean infamous, Putian hospital conglomerate. 莆田系.

If you search for the news in China, you don’t get “ethics” or “horror” or “brave new world”. No, all you get is “Those fucking Putian guys have gone crazy!!”, again and again, and again. If this had been a state-run project, nobody would be saying anything. Yes, some western educated scientists would protest. But the mood would have been “oh, wow. Cool.”. That was the general reaction of 90% of people when they first read the news, before the details started to trickle down. But once the Putian meme was out, most people in China wanted to grab Mr. He and tear him down to pieces.

He Jiankui must have known what he was getting into. He took a 3 year leave from his university post in February, supposedly to focus on this CRISPR baby project. The university has promptly disowned him, and 122 biologists come out asking for his imprisonment. China has started an investigation. It’s not looking good.

Putian is a small town in coastal Fujian province. There’s nothing special about it, besides them being Fujianese, and thus a bunch of cutthroat money-grabbers with no sense of ethics and morals. Yes, nobody likes the Fujianese, especially in China. For some reason the Putianese have a virtual monopoly of private hospitals in China; or at least that’s what people in the street will tell you. Supposedly they created a good political patronage network under Jiang Zemin in the 1990s, and since then, no private hospital can get an operating license in China if they’re not part of the Putian mafia.

Having a monopoly, and being (again, that’s the stereotype) genetically evil, the Putianese run hospitals are famous in China for outrageous prices and making up diseases so they can do expensive surgery to cure them. Allegations of baby theft and organ trafficking are also common. Again, I don’t know how true. I assume that the prices are high, and yes, unnecessary surgery happens, so the anger they have caused through those two things have escalated into Putianese doctors eating babies for breakfast and selling the organs to the Jews or something. Again, true or not, the street believes it, and that is newsworthy indeed.

It surprised no one that He Jiankui did his research through a Putian-owned hospital. Those guys will do anything for money. The question, however, remains: is this for real? Did he really pull it off? People on Twitter are saying they were classmates with the guy, and he was a physics major who only got into biology recently, no way he has the skill to pull this off. This could be just some marketing ploy to get fame for the Putianese IVF clinic he is now working for. Again, everything is fake in China. The Chinese will tell you so themselves.

I don’t know what to believe. If CRISPR babies are real, this guy is in trouble. If the babies are fake, then this guy got into real trouble for no reason at all. Yes, he got his Youtube views, and some fancy videos where he speaks in English. But what he did is kinda illegal in China; and while China enforces its own laws when it wants to, making an international scandal of THE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY EVER is pretty much the one thing that will trigger government attention in China. I hope for his own good that he’s just some mad scientist who went rogue.

If he is a fake, he’s gonna spend a long, long, long time in jail. All in exchange of 3 lame Youtube videos. If so, shame on you, He Jiankui. You are the dumbest guy ever, and you’d have brought shame on a great technology which could delay its application to humanity for decades. Decades which we don’t have, at this rate of IQ shredding.

China was kinda ok with gene editing, but by associating the technology with the most hated institution in China, he could very much have forced the hand of the Chinese government and have it effectively banned for good. The future of humanity may have just died by the intersection of a greedy hospital, a vain scientist and social media.

Say it ain’t so, He Jiankui. Better be true.

Patriarchal Sexual Law

We live in a world of sexual license. Sexual freedom we could say. You can sleep with whoever you want and neither state authorities, nor most people, will interfere with your sexual life. You can even engage in the most unnatural, disgusting and disease-inducing activities; but criminal law just has nothing against you.

This alone is a sign that the patriarchy doesn’t exist anymore. Patriarchies are systems in which all women belong to a man; the husband after marriage, the father before that, or the head of the household if she’s a servant of some sort. Women have this uncanny ability to make men want to have sex with them, and at the same time prefer to have exclusivity in that matter. Not to mention the potential for disease or childbirth. So naturally their legal guardians had to take care that women, i.e. their property, was not captured by other men to have sex with them without proper compensation. As such, law regulating sex in the pre-modern period where every bit as complicated, and as harsh, as laws regulating finance and property in our day.

Imperial Chinese law on marriage is a lot of fun, but most interesting are their laws on fornication. Fornication belonged to criminal law, ever since the very first complete legal code on compiled during the early Tang Dynasty in 624, which has remained to us as the 唐律疏義 tánglü shūyì. More importantly, rape was understood as fornication + force, a more serious crime but nothing really different. The difference is stark between a legal code which lasted pretty much intact for 1300 years, and our present day of female supremacy, when rape has been reinterpreted every few years as the single most heinous crime that can be committed, while at the same time requiring no standards of proof.

What follows is a translation of the legal code of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), the 大清律例 dàqīng lülì, tome 33. I have the book but you can find the text in Wikisource.

犯姦 Fornication

1. 凡和姦杖八十 . Any fornicator gets 80 strokes of the big stick.

zhang was a big wooden stick with a flat surface, the worst of two available corporal punishments. It was normally applied to the buttocks or the back. If done strongly it could kill a fit man after 50 strokes or so. The traditional maximum was 200, so it was usually never applied that strongly. Bribes to the executioner in advance helped make him feel weak that day.

At any rate, 80 strokes for peaceful, consensual fornication is a lot of strokes. 80%+ of the sex going on in any modern society is fornication. Think about that.

0

有夫者杖九十.  If there’s a husband, 90 strikes.

Obviously any consensual fornication with a woman with a husband is morally worse than if the woman is single, so you get 12% more strikes of the big fat wooden bat.

刁姦者[無夫有夫]杖一百. Seducers get 100 strokes, whether the woman has or does not have a husband.

– 刁姦 supposedly meant getting to fornicate on false pretences; the man (or woman, I guess) getting to seduce the other part by lying about its attractiveness or something. 100 strokes to you for lying. –

強姦者絞. Rapists [literally “forced fornicatiors”] get hanged. Not immediately, most death penalties were done after review on autumn. But rapists got hanged, period.

未成者杖一百流三千里. Attempted (but unfulfilled) rape  gets exile to 3,000 li away.

– A li was a bit more than 500m during the Qing (set at 576m around 1900), so about 1,700km away. –

凡問強姦須有強暴之狀婦人不能掙脫之情亦須有人知聞及損傷膚體毀裂衣服之屬方坐絞罪 This is commentary to the law: “All cases of rape require proof of violence, and proof that the woman couldn’t get away. Also they need someone in the know (i.e. a witness) and damage to the skin [of the victim] as well as her clothes, in order for the penalty of hanging to be valid.”

若以強合以和成猶非強也. If intercourse starts as forced but ends as consensual then [it means] it wasn’t forced”.

– Important point here. Very important point. Again this is commentary later added to the law. I wonder what case(s) prompted this to be added.-

如一人強捉一人姦之行姦人問絞強捉問未成—-流罪””If one man forcibly captures [a woman] and another man rapes her, the rapist gets hanged. Attempted rape gets exile”

又如見婦人與人通姦見者因而用強姦之已係犯姦之婦難以強論依刁姦律  If a man sees a woman fornicating, and because of that rapes her, it’s unfair to argue it’s rape, and so it’s sentenced as “seduction”. So rape of a fornicator gets you 100 strokes of the rod, not the death penalty. Hey, she was in the market after all.

姦幼女十二歲以下者雖和同強論. Fornication with a girl below 12 years old gets treated as forcible (rape), i.e. hanged, period. Not unlike what Anglo countries call “statutory rape”.

其和姦刁姦者男女同罪. In case of consented fornication and seduction, men and women get the same penalty.

姦生男女責付姦夫收養. If fornication results in a birth, the male fornicator must raise the child.

姦婦從夫嫁賣, 其夫願留者聽. If the female fornicator is married, her husband can sell her to someone else, or keep her if he so chooses.

若嫁賣與姦夫者姦夫本夫各杖八十婦人離異歸宗財物入官 If she is sold to the male fornicator, the fornicator *and* the cuck husband each get 80 strokes of the big stick. The woman is sent back to her father and her property is impounded by the government.

強姦者婦女不坐 Raped women have no punishment.

若媒合容止[人在家]通姦者各減犯人[和刁]罪一等 . People who promote or provide lodgings for fornication get the same punishment as fornicators, with one degree less. So 70 strokes of the big stick instead of 80.

[如人犯姦已露而代]私和姦事者各減[和刁強]二等 . People who, knowing fornication took place, do not denounce it to the authorities and instead helps the parties reach a private agreement, get the same punishment, with two degrees less. So 60 strokes of the big stick.

*This part is important*.

其非姦所捕獲及指姦者, 勿論. If someone claims there was fornication but didn’t actual caught them in the act, there is no crime.

若姦婦有孕[姦婦雖有據而姦夫則無憑]罪, 坐本婦. If a female fornicator is pregnant, she alone is punished. After alone, there is proof of her deed, but not of the man’s.

– Again, you needed proof, which wasn’t easy to come by. –

After the main articles come some further detailed regulations.

條例
一 、凡職官及軍民姦職官妻者 , 姦夫、姦婦女並紋監候 . If a public official or military man fornicates with the wife of a public official, both male and female fornicator hang.

若職官姦軍民妻者,革職,杖一白的決. If a public official fornicates with the wife of a military man, he is fired and gets 100 strokes of the big stick, [maximum penalty]. In this case the sentence had to be executed, he couldn’t evade it with money (as normal penalties could).

姦婦枷號 一 個月,杖 一 百. Fornicating military wife must carry the cangue for a month, and 100 strokes of the big stick.

01

– The cangue was a square made of wood with a hole for the head, or sometimes the hands, which people couldn’t get off. It’s basically a very funny way of making everyone know you’re a criminal. In this case a huge slut.

 

其軍民相姦者,姦夫 、 姦婦各枷號 一 個月,杖 一 百. If two military people fornicate, they get the cangue for one month, and 100 strokes of the big stick.

其奴婢相姦,不分 一 主,各主,及軍民與官員,軍民之妾婢相姦者,姦夫姦婦各杖一百. If two servants fornicate, whether they belong to the same master, or have different masters, as well as when military men fornicate with the concubine of a military men or a public official,  both fornicators get 100 strokes of the big stick.

– Note that simple fornication between free people was 80 strokes. –

凡有輪姦之案,審實,俱照光棍例,分別首從定擬. For cases of gang rape, after investigating the truth, officials must follow the Thug Regulations, and sentence separately the leader of the gang and the followers.

– The Thug Act being apparently Qing Dynasty official jargon for a special law for hoodlums and petty gangsters that the dynasty set up pretty early on. A principle of that law was to punish gang leaders with immediate beheading, and followers with deferred hanging. I guess the idea was to get the followers to rat on each other with the hope of having their death sentence annulled before Hanging Season started in the fall. –

 

The following article was about 雞姦, literally “chicken fornication”, which my dictionary tells me means “sex between men”. That I think is matter of another post.

My classical Chinese isn’t perfect and my legalese is even worse, so if there’s any error please let me know. But I think my translations are decent. I hope you get the gist of the law. Sex happens within marriage; period. If you must fornicate, at least take care that nobody knows or cares.

The Wars of the Sexes

What do Bronze Age Pervert and Brett Kavanaugh have in common?

Not a lot. One is a nudist bodybuilder, a tropical Nietzsche who wants to burn the cities and reduce women to breeding stock. The other is a pasty Irish Catholic Yale graduate who was pretty much a virgin until his marriage at age 40, and to this day can’t help crying like a girl when referring to the women “friends” during his life who gave him the slightest amount of attention.

Imagine these two guys in the same room. Would they get along? I don’t think so. And yet here we are, in this strange world where not only BAP, but millions of people in and outside the internet defending this Irish cuck and his all-female team of legal clerks. So what’s going on?

Let’s talk about the Women Question (WQ). The WQ is the realization among a few select men of intelligence that female emancipation has been a complete and utter disaster for civilization. What started rather innocently with giving limited economic rights to women (having a bank account, inheriting property) has spiraled in less than two centuries into a full fledged war of the sexes, making life miserable for hundreds of millions. And most importantly, depressing the birth rate of the most valuable people on earth.

It used to be that genes for better strength and health, for higher intelligence, for physical beauty, made you leave more offspring, while the unfortunate carriers of genes that made you unhealthy, ugly or stupid were unable to reproduce themselves. Well not anymore. The best people on earth today are all, thanks to the open sexual market of all against all (the extension du domain de la lutte of Houellebecq’s first novel) brought by female emancipation, squeezing themselves into big global cities, competing for status in a non-stop rat race which makes family formation impossible. They thus fail to have babies to inherit their precious genes, wasting them into these massive IQ shredders which dominate the modern world. I called them IQ shredders as IQ is the most pressing concern (no IQ no electricity, folks), but it’s really shredding all the genes of excellence that mother nature has spent millennia making for us.

This is not exactly a race thing, as it’s genes for excellence themselves which are being wasted in the global status rat race. It’s not just Indians or Africans outbreeding Whites. It’s the worst blacks and the worst Indians outbreeding the best of their kind. The first ethnic group to literally go extinct due to feminism won’t be any European people: it would be the Parsis, long the highest-performing ethnic group in the whole of India. They are actually going extinct because their women would rather take PhDs than make babies. And they do that because women don’t actually like most men. Women are wired to like the top 10-20% of men, “top” meaning bigger, stronger and more violent. It’s how it works in most mammals, you can’t argue with 500 million years of evolution. Hate the game, not the player.

Dp76ujlVAAAFDt6

If you think this doesn’t concern you, you’re wrong. The whole Western world is slowly morphing into having the demographics of Brazil, roughly half white, half black. But Brazil itself is shedding its best people. The next step there is South Africa, 10% white. But again we know what’s going on with South Africa and their planned dispossession of its white population. You know what comes after South Africa? The endgame is Haiti. If feminism isn’t stopped and reversed, the whole world will be Worldwide Haiti (WWH). Now think of that.

So what do we do? Opposition to feminism has a long history, but as feminism advanced from demanding equal rights to achieving effective supremacy, more and more men are noticing what’s going on, and are growing apprehensive at the dispossession of the male sex and the likely coming of Worldwide Haiti. I see four kinds of reaction to late-stage feminism.

  1. Surrender. Marry, have children, live a life of enforced domesticity, take the risk of your wife destroying your life unilaterally on a whim, taking your assets and your children. Maybe you’re lucky and you get a good woman. Or maybe you actually enjoy domesticity.
    It’s not an ideal solution for most men, it doesn’t solve the evil of feminism; but it does produce children, so credit where it’s due, we should thank the sacrifice that these men do for the future of our peoples.
  2. Quit. Men going their own way (MGTOW). The Japanese innovated here, as usual. In 2-chan they call live as a beta man today (80%+ of men) “playing in hard mode”. What do you do if you just can’t beat the game in hard mode? You quit and run a different game, of course. You buy a pillow with your favorite anime character of a 14 year old nymphomaniac with H-cup tits and a 10-inch waist and proclaim her your wife on your favorite internet forum.
    Not a solution, and really fucking disgusting on times. Withdrawal from the sexual market tends to make people into ambiguous freaks. At any rate it doesn’t help at all. This is a “you can’t fire me, I quit” kind of move. If you couldn’t get laid anyway, you aren’t quitting the sexual market, you have been fired. Withdrawing into a fantasy world, while an understandable instinct in some cases, doesn’t affect the sexual market equilibrium in the slightest. Betas are just invisible to women anyway, getting out of sight just makes it easier for them.
  3. Play the game. When playing a game in hard mode, some people quit. Some people take the challenge and master it. In the sexual game, they learn Game. Seduction techniques. Become an alpha, what women want. You read Heartiste, go on learning how to pick up women. Pump and dump. It’s a risky game to play, but rewards are high. If the man is so inclined it might lead to a successful taming of a woman and the production of good children. In other cases it leans to decadence and long-term misery. It’s not an ideal solution, in that it doesn’t quite solve feminism, and in fact provokes women into further escalating their demands for supremacy in order to rein down on men. Remember, women don’t want “good men”. They went the statistical “best men”. They just want the top 20% alphas. Faking an alpha is a short terms solution that only leads women to recalibrate their algorithms to come up with a new 20%. But hey, as pointless as it often is, as a man I can only respect the man who takes up the challenge and beats the game in hard mode.
  4. Now I don’t know how to call this strategy. I could just call it the BAP strategy. Or the Mishima strategy. Maybe call it Retreat, Regroup and Entice. Strategic Withdrawal. Or Sexual Cannae. Perhaps the best name would be the Mannerbund Strategy. Ever since the Industrial Revolution broke the equilibrium of the sexes in the civilized world, and brought men into the cities and into wage labor, plenty of people have deplored the effect this had on men, becoming effeminate and weak. Amusingly many of those who complained have been homosexual, as the leaders of the German Wandervogel in 19th century, or Mishima in 1960s Japan, or Jack Donovan in present America. This makes sense; homosexuals like real, strong men, even more so than women do, give their higher sex drive. While Bioleninism has been taking care of homosexuals of late, in a purely sexual way, homosexuals are the biggest victims of the dispossession of men and state-mandated effeminacy since the 1800s.

Of course not all of the strategic withdrawalists have been homosexuals; Nietzsche obviously comes to mind. At any rate, their idea is that men should recover their masculinity, go back not to pre-industrial times, but to the heyday of manhood, the culture where were not only in charge, their were heroic, and even beautiful. Ancient Greece. The Greeks just didn’t saw much of a point in women, for them men were just perfect, got things done, were fun to be with, and were beautiful to see even. Women were annoying and not even that good looking. So what Greek fans argued is that, if women are gaining power and annoying men, men should withdraw, live together, form mannerbunds and do their own manly things. Have fun and stop caring about women at all.

That’s fine and all. And in the 1920s and 30s, these male aesthetes were in some way responsible for the uber-manly fascist movements in Europe. The Nazis, and especially their armed forces, the SA, were full of crypto-homos such as Ernst Röhm. And they carried the day; Europe was this close to fall into communist horror, and it was only the handsome paramilitary armies of the post-Wandervogel boys that saved Western Europe from communism. So cheers to them. Homos saved Europe from communism once because they found mass rallies of armed muscular men arousing. And… then they were purged, with long knives. Cheers to that too.

While mannerbunds sound like real fun, they’re not quite clear on how that solves the feminism problem. Well yes, Mannerbunds are different from omega MGTOWs in that the latter are invisible to women anyway, but the former, by the sheer size and hardness of their abdominal muscles, have a way of making women crazy

But still, getting women horny doesn’t solve the issue of producing quality babies if you don’t actually go through the trouble of impregnating them. Which you can’t in any civilized country, not if you want to stay in the mannerbund, given women’s legal power to enforce serfdom to the genetic father of any of her babies.

While I sympathize with the idea, and hope history remembers me as the man who provided the theoretical justification for destroying IQ shredders and salting the land, for better or worse, we don’t live in the Bronze Age anymore, and omegas married to their pillows are likely to be more useful at Razing the Cities through their knowledge of programming or nuclear engineering than Mannerbund Aesthetes with expertise in ancient art history.

The question remains, though: what can we do? How do we prevent Worldwide Haiti? Bring back the patriarchy? A subset of strategy 1, marriage, is trying to recreate a patriarchy inside an isolated society. A well known example is the Benedict Option, by religious-shopper Rod Dreher. The idea is that people should isolate from mainstream progressive society and try to pull a medieval Benedictine hill monastery kind of trick, and do their own thing in blessed isolation. A long but insightful review of the book by veteran blogger Handle can be found here

The Benedict Option is a really misleading naming for what should have been plainly called “The Amish strategy”. Because that’s what you need to keep your women in control. The Amish have a patriarchy alright. They even get progressive journos sent to document how evil and patriarchal they are. But they are left alone, for some reason. Doesn’t mean any neo-Amish movement starting from scratch would be. And that’s assuming any woman born in our feminist supremacist society would actually join in. The Amish are already there, after all, and nobody’s joining them.

The patriarchy only evolved in places where the local ecology made necessary the hard labor of men for survival. Places where women couldn’t feed themselves. Places with cold winters. Places where you needed granaries to store food for the winter, and men to guard those granaries from enemy peoples. In those places men got to rule, because what were women going to do anyway? They would starve and freeze without a man.

And so a system was set where every single women was subject to a man, either her husband or her father. Sexual access to women (and her labor, which was often quite useful at home) required a lifelong contract, or else. Now some patriarchies allowed polygamy. Europe didn’t. But the general point that women were subject to men was respected; and that was what kept most men with skin in the game, willing to contribute their productive labor to society at large.

That was just a function of the economy. There’s plenty of places where women can feed themselves without men. Warm, tropical places. You don’t have patriarchies in those places, unless a northern tribe conquered them and kept it by cultural inertia. You never get a matriarchy, women are never physically strong enough nor organized enough to rule over men. But you do get matrilineal and matrilocal societies: places where women do their thing, feed themselves, fuck who they want, and interact with men mostly on the women’s terms. The Chinese call one of these matrilineal hill tribes as having 走婚, walking marriage. Because the women live all with their womenfolk, sex happens when a man walk to the woman’s house, screws her, and then leaves. The kid belongs to the mother’s house, the couple can break at each other’s whim (though there’ll plenty of nagging and gossip in the village), and the guy may or may not feed the child depending on how much of an asshole he is. He usually is.

That’s how society worked in much of Africa and Southeast Asia; women lived in their own villages, fed themselves. Men live with other men, have their cool mannerbund where they dress up and decorate themselves and work out and fight a lot, come and go to women’s villages now and then to exchange food and sex. Of course it’s not that easy going; it’s heavily ritualized with festivals and ceremonies and so on, and sex pairings are supposed to be exclusive unless something goes wrong. The late Henry Harpending had a great writedown of this sort of societies, and how men and women relate to each other in the absence of a pressing need for marriage, as in winter societies.

That’s where we’re moving now. That’s the sort of society that arises when women can feed themselves. Of course our societies today are much worse than that. During the transition to a female-centered society, women want to have it both ways: they want the freedom of a tropical society, but they also want the amenities of a patriarchal civilized society. Every day they see their standard of living dropping as men refuse to marry them and pay for women’s lifestyles, women nag and cry about how evil men are. Well, that’s how it works. You can get to chase Chad to your heart’s content. You already do, and it’s been a thing in tropical societies for tens of thousands of years. But what you don’t get is to chase Chad and get Dad to pay for it.

Matrilineal societies have reasonable fertility rates, even today, so the total collapse of sex relations in modern civilized societies is probably more a function of the slow motion breakdown of the patriarchy and women knowing they’re screwed either way, than just a function of female choice. Women do like babies. They just want to have yours. And they want to travel too. And have a career. Aah! I can’ even.

Can we go back to a patriarchy? We could. I guess the Mannerbund proponents envision a small army growing steadily, first a dozen kids, then one hundred, then one million, then revolting, razing the cities, conquering the world. That would work.

Absent that, though, capitalism is here to stay, female labor is 90% bullshit but still 10% useful. Most importantly, food is cheap. Women can feed themselves either way. They didn’t like the patriarchy, they won’t go back without force; force that men just don’t have the organizational power to apply. The alphas are having a lot of fun, after all. A solution would be to flank the female army and come up with some technological innovation that made frontal engagement unnecesary. Embryo selection and CRISPR could again, in a few decades, produce quality babies without having to fix sex relations. Artificial wombs could make Brave New World a reality. Worldwide Haiti could be avoided, good babies produced and neither men nor women would have to cope with lifelong marriage, which let’s be honest, 80% of men nor women don’t really enjoy.

That’s assuming that advanced civilization stays in a more or less stable way. In that case the  breakdown is here to stay. If some big fat SHTF moment happens, if there’s widespread collapse, then all bets are off. An old school patriarchy would have the upper hand there. But it would have to be solid, have a strong religion behind it. A new religion, perhaps.

The BAP Trap

There’s a lot of odd, deeply odd, profoundly strange things about modern society. Things that would make any hypothetical man traveling through time to our day from the past to have their heads explode in bewilderment. Perhaps one of the most salient characteristics of modernity, if not the most, is the presence of sexual identity groups. Sexual orientation, as they call it.

(This essay will be sprinkled with some completely random pictures and quotes I found on the internet to support my argument)

Traditional societies, according to the information they have, believe there are men, and there are women. Man and women marry and have sex (sometimes in reverse order) and have children and so on.

There are obvious differences in average behavior between men and women, which we can call masculinity and feminity. But there’s also quite a lot of variation there, as in every single human trait, from size, to eye shape, to smell, to metabolism speed, you name it.

6k40gwd.jpg

Some men are quite extreme in their masculinity. Some are rather closer to the middle of the spectrum. There’s even some (a very little) overlap there. A woman in a million has a thicker beard than one man in a million. But still. Men are men, even effeminate men, and women are women, and that’s it.

Now and then there are freaks who are *way* out of the spectrum. Again it happens in many other traits. Some men are taller than others, on a Gaussian distribution. Then a tiny few are midgets. Some people have more powerful legs than others. Some are born with a limp. Some men are manlier than others. Some are really girly. Some even pretend their are women or try to have sex with men. We call those homosexuals.

屏幕截图 2018-08-26 23.48.12

Now that’s quite of a problem. Sex is very important. Sex is the basis of society, the prime motivator, especially for men. Sex must be channeled and controlled if a society is to stick together.

Human societies reacted differently to the existence of homosexuals. Some ignored the issue, taking care of individually troublesome cases but generally ignoring the phenomenon as a whole. That’s the case of East Asia. They’re good at that. “If it stinks, cover it”, as they say in Japan. 臭いものに蓋. It worked for them.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 00.02.21

In others, perhaps a majority of human societies, behavior was given priority. So if a man insisted in having sex with men; well that’s what women do. So you’re a woman. Yeah, you might look completely like a man. Have male genetics, we’d say today. But if you behave like a woman, the looks aren’t what matters the most. We’ll take care of your appearance. And so in Iran, for example, homosexual men are forced by the state to undergo “gender reassignment surgery”. That is, they try to shape them as much as possible into women, then given legal female status. And out they go. They aren’t very good looking women, but there’s plenty of unfortunate men around who will be happy to tap them now and then. They can’t have babies of course, so marriage is not likely, but they’ll have to accept their lot. The same way midgets do.

I do wonder what they do with obstinate lesbians, if there’s some creative Islamic solution to have them to have penises. I suspect that given the legal environment, women who are into women find a way of not being too obnoxious about it. But I digress. Muslims, Indians, Southeast Asians, to my knowledge all take this sort of strategy. And it works for them.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.47.18

In the modern West, for some reason, we chose to give appearance priority. So if you look like a man, you are a man. You may be very girly. You may like to wear female clothes. You may like dolls and make-up. You may talk like a fag. You may have sex with men. But if you look like a man, you are a man. A different sort of man. A gay man. Certainly not a woman!

The same applies to women who happen to behave like men. They aren’t men. They are women. Just odd women. Lesbians, we call them. This way of categorizing outliers on sexual behavior slowly crystalized in the West around the liberal revolutions. So in a way it grow exactly with modernity, and as I argue here is indeed perhaps the most characteristic aspect of modernity.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.42.21

The operating principle here seems to be that choice of sexual partner is this one part of one’s character, some kind of taste, not dissimilar from taste on food or drink. That men who have sex with men (MSM, as the medical bureaucracy puts it) happen to be effeminate in pretty much every aspect of their lives was not noticed very strongly, especially at the beginning. I guess it just happened that when gay men became a thing in 19th century England, middle and upper class homosexual men were socialized strongly enough into English masculinity that they just didn’t come out as women trapped in male bodies. Oscar Wilde was homosexual, and he was kinda odd, but he didn’t come out as being girly. For all the people of his time, he was just this bloke with weird sexual taste.

So perhaps because of this empiric lack of correlation among the elite (i.e. the people who shape the culture), or because Christianity doesn’t contemplate sexual change, or because of Benthamite liberalism determining that all human behavior is about taste and pleasure and the most evil thing is to notice strange things about people’s behavior (Bentham had good reasons to dislike people noticing his behavior); or perhaps because 19th century elites had low fertility and didn’t want to lose the few boys they had even if they happened to behave like girls; at any rate, we in the West alone decided that homosexuality is about sexual taste, and not fundamental gender dysphoria.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.49.24

Now this was a momentous decision. Never before in the history of the world, homosexuals, men and women, were given each a name, an identity. Names are no laughing matter. Names are socially approved categories. They are a social license to exist. Gay men now exist. Lesbians now exist. They never did before, but now they do. And since we gave them a name, Western society created categories of people where none existed before. And that has had very notorious consequences. Perhaps fatal consequences.

I should add that interpreting homosexuality as a sexual choice and not inborn gender dysphoria doesn’t fit the scientific evidence we have, nor the historical evidence of what most of humanity has thought of the issue. For a very informative, and extremely readable book on the issue, look to Michael Bailey here. Here’s my take on the book.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.54.08

Whatever your take on what homosexuals are and how they came to be, one thing is clear, by their own admission. Gay men generally want to have sex with heterosexual men. But heterosexual men by definition won’t have sex with men. So homosexuals have two choices here. They can undergo a sex change, either surgically complete (as they enforce in Iran), or some half-way (as its easy to see in Thailand), and try to convince heterosexual men to take them as women. Or they can give up on heterosexual men and have sex with fellow gay men.

Neither choice is very satisfactory. Most homosexual man can’t pass as an attractive woman, even after extensive extensive surgery. And sex with fellow effeminate gay men requires industrial amounts of LARPing, having to make oneself look like a tough man when they really want to wear dresses, and empirically not a small amount of drugs. It is a tough life either way. No good solutions. It must be irritating, which is why gays tend to look irritated and often driven into extreme self-harming behavior.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.53.34

Lesbians have it easier, if only by women having a much lower sex drive. Pretty women are out of reach, which sucks, but heterosexual women are much more open to persuasion in general, so it’s orders of magnitude easier to get an average girl to date a lesbian than it is for a normal man to have homo sex. Women are just more into LARPing as a general rule, and as real manly lesbians tend to be much fewer than homosexual men, lesbianism seems to be an out of control mass-LARP game of women trying to play a game that nobody remembers who started and has actually very few real players in it.

Again, the key point here is that homosexuals don’t want to have sex with each other. They want to have sex with heterosexuals. Which won’t, by definition. The logical solution here would be for homosexuals to change their sex, which is again a very old and empirically attested solution practiced in many societies.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.51.54

But mandatory sex-change has its drawbacks. You look like a freak, for one. And letting homosexuals keep their bodies unchanged also has many advantages. Not in the sexual realm, sure. But gay men in modern society get to choose whether to share their sexual choices. They may not come out of the closet, as we say, and just pass as a normal heterosexual man. That has many advantages. They get thus to dwell among heterosexual men; which they supposedly enjoy. And they also get to function as an effective secret society, helping each other covertly, promoting each other in jobs, giving each other businesses, covering each other’s backs. Blackmailing each other. The Gay Mafia. It’s a real thing.

They also get to influence men, persuading them into behaving in ways advantageous to homosexuals, while ostensibly offering advice as just one more man, one who happens to have a peculiar perspective on things.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.51.26

It is by no coincidence that gay men are extremely overrepresented in political parties or in the mass media, or as public intellectuals. Perhaps the enjoy the rather effeminate nature of the jobs’ activities (talking a lot, sounding pompous, frequent parties and public gatherings, gossip and conspiracies, etc.). At any rate they are everywhere, in a way which would not be possible if they were forced or strongly induced to change sex. Although ladyboys are everywhere in Thailand too, so who knows. But still, stealth obviously has some advantages, enough advantages to make the rather unnatural and contradictory gay-man lifestyle be bearable for them.

Note that the same applies for lesbian women, perhaps even more so. Lesbian women have been extremely active in influence operations since more than a century ago. The case can be made that every single feminist movement was started by lesbians, for two purposes. One, to push society to allow them to behave as men, which is what they crave by their own nature as women born with masculine brains. The second, perhaps unintended consequence, is to push women, by persuading them to advocate feminist causes and raising their standards of acceptable male behavior, to become so unfeminine, annoying and obnoxious to men that no men can bear their companionship, and thus drive what were perfectly fine and fertile women into the arms of lesbians.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 01.52.10

Note that women weren’t just fooled by a small bunch of tiny lesbians. Well, they kinda were, but they were fooled for a reason. It’s like the old argument about the Jews hijacking Western society with their socialism and other destructive theories. Well, yeah, but you need two to dance. Jews sold a product because there was a market to it. Lesbians too sold their feminism because there was a market of eager buyers. The arguments were quite compelling, and they came with perfect timing, just as the modern industrial economy was giving women more economic opportunities, and thus more bargaining power versus men. And the lesbian feminist arguments were very useful for women at a moment they wanted to increase their bargaining power. And you can’t blame them for it. Everyone wants to get a better deal.

On hindsight, the war has been extremely destructive to both sides, but that’s the nature of war. Humanity has been waging war forever, knowing perfectly well that it is destructive to both sides, but we keep fighting, because one side at the beginning often think it has much to win.

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 12.40.39.png

Now of course this this doesn’t absolve lesbians (or Jews) from blame from selling toxic ideas. Every society has conflicts and contradictions of some sort. But the infighting tends to be limited by traditional norms of conduct which go by the personal ties between people. A highly motivated, hostile outside group can break that traditional balance, selling ideological drugs in a market which might be open to it, but also traditionally expected some restrain from the suppliers. When the suppliers, not being an integral part of it, are motivated to destroy society in their benefit, that breaks the traditional balance of debate, and chaos ensues.

You might be asking yourself now: sure, there is a stealthy Gay Mafia, notoriously in politics or the Catholic Church. But while lesbians have been indeed obviously (if not quite openly) agitating for feminism in academia and literature, what have gay men been advocating for? Sure plenty of them have been openly advocating for gay rights, “pride”, sometimes even for legal changes to allow pederasty and other abhorrent behavior. But where have gay men been stealthily nudging heterosexual men into their camp, using cleverly packaged rhetoric that seems to increase the bargaining power of men, the way lesbians have been trolling heterosexual women into feminism as a pathway to lesbianism?

屏幕截图 2018-08-27 12.43.43

I will elaborate on the next post. On the meantime there are some hints hidden here, somewhere.

Black Swans of Common Knowledge

As I write this, the news are coming out that the 12 boys trapped in 4km inside a cave in northern Thailand have been rescued, after having trapped in a cold, damp and pitch black cave for 10 long days until they were discovered, and another tense week when nobody really knew how to get them out. The rescue operation has been smooth, amazingly so.

The whole thing has been like a perfect movie. The setting is completely absurd. What were the boys doing there? Apparently the coach (apparently it’s a soccer team) had a habit of taking the early teen boys hiking and exploring and doing boy-scouts kind of stuff. Which is fine; but why on earth did he get into 4 damn kilometres into an unexplored cave in the beginning of the raining season? What was he thinking? In some other place or time the coach would have been left to rot inside, and his whole family beat to death. In Japan today he would probably have to kill himself after he and his whole family are completely ostracized. The Japanese are quite amazed at how nice the Thais have been in general.

But again, like in a movie, the setting is not important. The drama afterward is, and this cave-rescue story has had all the necessary elements. The long search, eventually finding the kids. The kids being in good health, because their mysterious coach has taught them meditation (to 13 year old boys? come on). The international teams coming in, all rushing to find a solution. Discussing for several days what to do, with many giving up and saying the rescue could have to wait 4 months. Then the rains coming up, forcing everyone to find a solution right now. And the pressure worked; they found a solution: getting the kids full-face oxygen masks and bringing them out with two divers per kid, one pulling and one pushing them out. While looking for a solution one heroic diver tragically died, providing the necessary tragic scene to the movie.

There’s even Elon Musk using the event to, of course, shamelessly promote himself, doing more harm than good, but of course any publicity is good publicity.

And now the kids are out. Happy ending. Which is good. Not because of the kids, mind you. Yeah sure, good for them. It wasn’t easy to endure all that, and they came out safe. Good for them. But let’s see the great picture. But 12 dumb boys and their dumber coach in Thailand are not something important. But the cave rescue story was so big, it attracted so much national and international attention, that everybody was talking about it. And when everybody is talking about the same thing, that tends to have political consequences. That’s how politics work, especially in our unfortunate era of mass communication.

“Thai authorities are trying to use [the rescue] for political gain,” said Rangsiman Rome, a pro-democracy activist and leader of the Democracy Restoration Group. “Whoever saves the kids is going to be seen as a hero.”

Thailand right now is in a tough spot politically. For over a decade the country has been torn between the traditional elite, based in the monarchy and the rich families from the capital, and a new movement led by some weird provincial guy called Thaksin who run a very smart political movement in which he pays rural peasants to vote for him, and he sticks it to the traditional elite in exchange. Every time the elite gets fed up with Thaksin and his party they stage a coup, rule for a few years, then run elections. Which Thaksin always wins. He will always win them. Why doesn’t the Bangkok elite just pay the peasants 5 dollars more than Thaksin, I don’t know. I guess they are cheap like that. Think they shouldn’t have to. Schools are so expensive these days, you know.

Since 2014, a military junta rules the country, and it has wisely chosen not to hold elections just yet. As China becomes the largest trade partner of all countries in the region, USG has been losing control of Southeast Asia, so Thailand figured they could get away with that. In the Philippines they elected Duterte which has been telling America to fuck off since he got the job. Cambodia is an outright Chinese satellite. Myanmar has gone back to China since USG tried to force them to let themselves get killed by a local Muslim army.

But China hasn’t been playing its hand too well. Its tourists are now everywhere, and well, nobody likes having too many foreigners around. Especially the Chinese, which are rude, crass, loud, and think they are hot stuff because they have money. They spend well, they don’t screw the local women, they don’t piss on the king’s portrait… but they’re kinda annoying. Most importantly, they move themselves and run the travel agencies, the bars, the hotels, the boats; basically every money that there is to make from the business, the Chinese will try to monopolize, and not let a single dime fall into hands of the locals. They do that in every business. The Japanese and Koreans do it too. It’s good business, of course, but it’s bound to anger your business partners. Especially if they are low-IQ , easy-going kind of people you find in Southeast Asia.

That was easily seen in the recent Malaysian election, when the party which had been ruling since independence lost the election, mostly because of anger against Chinese investment in the country, and the corruption it had enabled. The election upset of course galvanized all Westernized opinion. Democracy at work! Democracy is back! All that momentum is looking for a new target. Who is it? Not Vietnam, that’s a communist regime. Not the Philippines, the guy just won, and he was the upset candidate in his time. Cambodia is now also using Chinese money to build a competent dictatorship. The obvious target is Thailand, which is formally a democracy, and a pretty lively one. The military junta has committed to holding elections next year, and opposition forces are mobilizing. The most promising candidate is a young 30-something billionaire. Which also looks totally gay. Of course, the business of the Cathedral in 2018 is exporting Bioleninism.

Which brings us back to the 13 boys trapped in the cave. Who cares? Yeah, it’s a good story. But let’s say that Gnon rightly punished their stupidity and the boys had died the third day, and so been found dead after the long search. What would have happened? Absolutely nothing. Sad story, sure. The government would have made a statement, lamenting the news, calling for people to be more careful and not going to deep into caves. And that would have been the end of it. In a country where everybody drives fast motorbikes without helmets, 12 boys dying in a single day is not something uncommon.

40 people died on a boat accident in Phuket last week too. The news was huge in China, because most of the dead were Chinese, and yes, the operator of the boat was also Chinese. The Thais weren’t interested in Chinese deaths, besides laughing at them, and the Western press isn’t interested in Chinese deaths either, so that news is not consequential. It’s not interesting, and so its not common knowledge. The 13 boys in a cave, though, that’s a good story, and so it spread. It spread so much that it became common knowledge. And when something is common knowledge, people must have an opinion on them. You gotta talk about something, right? Conversation is a way to convey information, but there’s only a real need for so much information most of the time. 90% of conversation is just a way of testing your peers and see if you can pick up some status from them. And that’s the most basic form of politics.

The most important invention of the 20th century wasn’t antibiotics, or the airplane. It was TV. The dumb box made everybody sit down and watch the same stuff, all day, every day. Why? Precisely because it gets everyone to watch the same thing, to have the same common knowledge. Suddenly everybody had something in common to talk about and play politics, big and small. Of course it’s better if the TV has good, thrilling stories, like the Thai cave kids. But even if it hasn’t. Or if the stories are fake, like all those soaps we love to watch. The thing is to have something in common to talk about, to coordinate around. Fuel for our social instincts.

And so as everyone in Thailand was worrying about the kids in the caves, opposition political parties such as the one quoted above starting salivating. If, just if, the Thai government botches the rescue attempt. Either through incompetence, or just because it’s impossible to do; doesn’t matter, only results do. If the government can’t deliver and rescue those 12 dumb kids in the cave; a massive blame campaign could be launched, painting those 12 kids as innocent boys who were left to die by an evil dictatorial government. Many people would have agreed with that; after all they had been glued to their TVs and chatting non-stop about the cave kids for 2 weeks straight. Surely if the kids had died they would’ve felt compelled to reach some conclusion about it. Even if it had absolutely nothing to do with their lives, or with the quality of their government.

If the Thai government hand’t delivered in rescuing the kids, it may very well have fallen. Which is crazy. Think about it. How many things are the responsibility of a government? Governments employ millions of people. They manage huge heaps of affairs, many of them extremely important. Food supply, the military, industrial policy, education, trade; you name it. A government should be judged by how it does the things it’s designed to do. Not by how it manages to save 12 dumb kids and their dumb coach who in some fateful day as an election campaign was getting started, decided to go 4 km into a damn flooded cave.

Not that they can say anything like that, of course. Oh no, the government had to keep up good spirits. Thais, as one of the few peoples of the world which avoided colonization by Western powers, have kept much of their traditional culture, based on Theravada Buddhism in their case, so they are no strangers to public displays of nonsense. Everybody was praying for the kids, trying to be positive, lest one bad thought summon demons and cause harm to the poor boys. The government just announced that the kids, which were remember a soccer team, will get lifelong free tickets for their local soccers stadium, and a cash stipend to be paid immediately. Rewarding reckless behavior, you say? Shut up, you eeyore. Gotta be positive. The government’s reputation depends on it.

You can see what happens when the government reputation is not on the line, even if the incident is arguably more serious. The Phuket boat which sunk killing 40 tourists; well that’s pretty damn serious for a country where tourism is a big chunk of GDP. But the incident was Chinese people running a substandard operation, and the country’s vicepremier said it openly. This is Chinese people killing Chinese people; it does not concern us Thais. He was pretty angry at the whole incident, and he showed it. He could do so, as there was little domestic attention on this incident. He later apologized, however, as I guess the Chinese embassy wasn’t keen on the Thai government shitting on the source of half his tourists. Who do spend some money in the country after all, even if their countrymen try their best to capture all they can and ship it back home.

How does a government prepare against sudden black swans, random compelling stories which can draw the attention of a whole nation? You can’t, really. You can do like China, and have a few million people controlling the whole media, and seeing that no story goes on TV or gets retweeted too many times before they’ve found a spin that makes the government look good. But that’s a huge effort, and even China has chosen to co-opt stories instead of shutting them down as the irrelevant trivia that they really are.

But this instinct, the idea of using random events to test the mettle of a government is really quite ancient. Hell, the ancients actively sought random events, run them themselves, in order to test if a government was doing a good job. We call that divination. And of course there were always omens; particularly in China, any random weather or celestial event was thought to be a signal of Heaven’s displeasure with the emperor. That’s the psychology of common knowledge: if we have to take decisions in common, we must use things we all know about, such as the weather, or some ritual in which we all participated, as data for that decision.

People also want status, which makes any government inherently unstable. Everybody, or at least many people, want the king’s place. Even if there’s libraries upon libraries of law and custom saying that you can’t take the king’s place, the temptation is always there of trying to find some good reason to bring him down. Like, say, some big random event. Rulers after all, in our ancestral environment, when we spent time hunting and moving around, were not stable positions. Leaders in primordial human society exist because of a completely utilitarian calculus: rulers are there because they deliver the goods. They bring more meat, they defeat our enemies. Or they have awesome spells that make rain fall. Which don’t always work if you think about it, but everybody believes them. That’s what charisma is all about: the commonly acknowledged ability to deliver the goods, either proven, suspected or induced by propaganda. Biological variation and the nature of social animals make it so that having a leader to help the group coordinate and engage in collective action is incredibly useful, and some people will be more naturally suited to that leading role than others. But people will accept losing status to some guy only under very strict conditions. They must feel affiliated with him in some way, so that they can consider the ruler to be their guy. And he must deliver the goods.

Thankfully in this case Prayut and his guys delivered the goods, and Thailand will be spared of further turmoil at least until next year. The opposition of course cries “they’re using the kids for political purposes”. Of course! They were forced to, else that very opposition would use the kids in order to bring down the government. I’m sure neither Prayut not anybody in his government was happy about the huge problem the dumb kids had given them. In any pre-mass media society, the kids would have been left to die, and nobody would have cared, besides some locals who would have come with legends of cave demons one shouldn’t disturb.

The Past and Future of Korea

So Trump just met Marshall or Chairman or whatever Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

I don’t have any opinion on the meeting. Nothing substantial was agreed on. Seems to me nothing real happened at all. North Korea isn’t going to give away its nukes. And USG isn’t going to withdraw its troops from South Korea. Thus, nothing is going to happen.

The reasoning is quite simple. At the end of the day, North Korea is a small, poor, fairly inconsequential country 25 million people. It’s birth rate appears to be close to 2, more than double that of South Korea, but still, it hardly matters at all.

Yes, it has nukes. But why would it give them away? Gaddafi gave them away. He was killed shortly after, as the evil fat women USG likes to employ laughed about it. No way North Koreans with their 105 IQ are going to surrender their nukes. Not a good idea.

Unless USG packs and leaves South Korea, leaving the degenerate land of barren K-pop whores and their long legs achieved through horrendous surgery open to domination by Kim Jong Uns soldiery. That would be a reasonable deal.

Which is not going to happen. The US military, or more precisely the military-industrial complex, as President Eisenhower put it, is today about half of the US power structure. It funds the larger part what Moldbug called Redgov, the Republican party and its appendixes. Redgov is the Pentagon and its friends. The US military being in South Korea means a lot of public money, a lot of budgets, a lot of salaries that US generals do not want to lose. These guys aren’t going anywhere. The US military just doesn’t leave unless forced to.

And certainly not today, when official doctrine is that China is America’s Strategic Rival. We are in Cold War 2. Google it, it’s already a thing. America is preparing for decades of juicy budgets to counter China and fight it in all fronts, so long as nukes aren’t involved. Having troops in Seoul, 900 km from Beijing is just too good to just leave. It’s an amazingly good strategic position. Not a single GI is going to leave, even if Trump really thinks he’s getting a Noble Peace Prize, Which he isn’t. Trump does not rule over the US military, and that is that.

So again, my prediction is: nothingburger. China will lift economic sanctions over North Korea, the US won’t, after Trump is gone USG will pressure China over North Korea’s failure to denuclearize, and we’ll be back to square 1. I really hope Temasek is getting some mining concession in Hamgyeong or the 20 million spent on this summit are going to look bad in Singapore’s tightly held accounting books.

So all that said, I figured I might as well write a bit about how Koreans talk about themselves. We all talk about North Korea and South Korea. But surely you don’t believe North and South Koreans talk of themselves like that? Of course not. North and South are just geographical adjectives we, ignorant foreigners use to make sure we know where each government is located. But the guys in the ground have access to millennia of history to come up with nice sounding words to justify their claim to power. After all, both Koreas claim to be the legal government of the whole territory. So of course they don’t call themselves “North” or “South” anything. They call themselves the whole thing.

What thing, though? Surely they don’t call themselves the same name? In English they do. The South is “Republic of Korea” while the North is the “Democratic People’s… Republic of Korea”. But that’s not how it works in Korean.

Or may I say in Chinese, as Korean political words are almost exclusively Chinese words adopted in Korean, and that includes their own toponyms. All place names in Korean, North and South, with the very overt exception of Seoul, are Chinese derived words. That includes the name of the country, the names of all provinces and all cities. Most interesting of course is the name of the country, as that changes the most. Chinese-inspired polities tend to change the name of the state every time the dynasty changed. Modern Republics kinda count as dynasties, a fact which is often a matter of jokes, especially in China. The name of the country thus says a lot about the people who founded the government.

South Korea calls itself 大韓民國, 대한민국, Dae Han Min Guk. The first letter, ‘dae’ in korean, means big. The second, ‘Han’, is a proper name. Min-guk here is literally “common-people’s country”. It’s an early Chinese rendering of the concept of “republic”, and a rather elegant one. So South Korea is, literally “Republic of Great Han”. On everyday speech it is shortened to 韓國,한국 Han Guk, Han Guo in Chinese, Kan Koku in Japanese. “Han-land”, sorta.

What is ‘Han’ though? Note that this Han has nothing to do with the Han of China’s main ethnic group. That one is written 漢. South Korea is 韓. Zoom in, you’ll see they’re different. 漢韓. Tones are different in Chinese. No tones in Korean, so they do pronounce them the same, but such is life in China’s area of linguistic influence.

So anyway, the Chinese letter which is now used by South Koreans to refer to themselves goes back to the Han state in warring-states era China, which was born of the dismembering of the Jin state in 403 BC. The Han state was somewhere between southern Shanxi and northern Henan in today’s China, and while it wasn’t one of the powerful warring states, it did give us the great philosopher Han Fei.

Actually one can track the word back to an even earlier state, or rather a small fief given by the early Zhou Dynasty (1046 BC) to one of the many sons of the Zhou founder (the Warrior King, Wu Wang), which was located in… 韩城, the city of Han, which still exists to this very day, a small mountain town on the west bank of the Yellow River. Shaanxi province. Small towns having the same name for 3,000 years is one of the joys of the Chinese writing system.

So what does a Bronze Age walled town in the middle Yellow River have to do with post-WW2 South Korea? Their names are written exactly the same, 韓國. But that’s about it. Obviously China’s Bronze Age river town has precedence. 3,000 years worth of it. So why did South Korea took its name from it? That’s a bit complicated, and fairly stupid if you ask me. Let me explain.

Korea is one of the countries with the least complicated history on earth. The country adopted Chinese statecraft early on, but Korean dynasties on average last longer than Chinese ones. Chinese states if lucky lasted at most 250 years. While the last two Korean dynasties lasted 500 years each (!). I think that’s a record.

So anyway, as a unified kingdom Korea starts being a thing in 668. The first kingdom was called Silla 新羅 (668-935), ruled by the Kim family, then came Goryeo 高麗 (918-1392),obviously the origin of the Western name, ruled by the Wang family. And then came Joseon 朝鮮 (1392-1897), ruled by the Li family.

As in China, a new dynasty changed the name of the country. So where did those names come from? Silla was the original name of a state in the South-west of the Korean peninsula. It then grew, and a smart alliance with Tang China got him the rest of the peninsula by 668. Nobody knows the origin of the name, nor much at all besides that it was probably pronounced as “Sila” or “Sira” back then. Perhaps it meant something like “big city”, which links to modern Korean “Seoul”.

Silla was replaced by Goryeo, which got its name from the great kingdom of Goguryeo, a kingdom which was born in today’s southern Manchuria in 37 BC, but eventually grew to conquer most of the northern Korean peninsula. They also founded Pyongyang, such as it was. As it happens the little evidence we have of Goguryeo’s language suggests that it’s more related to Japanese than to Korean, but it was a kickass warrior kingdom that everybody remembered fondly. And so when Silla was overthrown, new Wang family dynasty, who claimed descent from them, chose to recover the name for their new state.

So then after a good and eventful 500 years the Goryeo dynasty collapses, and it is replaced by a coup launched by this guy called Yi Seong-gye. The background here is that as the Mongol Yuan dynasty, which ruled both China and Korea, collapsed, the recovered Goryeo dynasty tried to take advantage of the civil war chaos to win more territory from China. Yi Seong-gye was a Goryeo general, and he received the orders to attack Chinese armies. He thought it was a pretty stupid idea, so he came with a better one: he’d make peace with the Chinese armies and go invade the Korean capital instead. So he crossed the Korean Rubicon, and installed himself as new king in 1392.

Then he asked the newly founded Ming dynasty China if they’d recognize him, which of course they did gladly. He was the nice guy who had chosen to ally with them instead of attacking their armies. He then asked the Ming emperor to choose a name, out of a couple ideas, and the Ming First Emperor chose for him 朝鮮 조선 Joseon. Which is the name of a small kingdom, theoretically located around today’s Pyongyang, which had payed fealty to the Zhou Dynasty way back in 1046 BC. So Bronze Age, again. The name was both ancient, Korean, and it symbolized the good relations with big bro China, and so Joseon it was.

So let’s go forward again 500 years (how did Korean dynasties last so long I really have no idea). It’s 1897, and the Joseon Dynasty is still around. Yi Heui is the 26th king in a straight line of Joseon kings. But it’s 1897 already, it’s the apogee of Western Imperialism, and it’s also 2 years after the First Sino-Japanese war. That war was launched by Japan explicitly with the aim of making Korea ‘independent’ from China. And Japan won, so it behooved Korea to take concrete steps to cut its traditional ties with China. Ties which had given it its name back in 1392. It took 2 years to convince the Korean king, who thought like many in Korea thought it was absurd to pretend to be diplomatically equal to China. Those 2 years included a series of coups, the murder of his queen, and an escape to the Russian embassy. But eventually in 1897 the Korean king made his mind. Same dynasty, of course, but new regime. And so new name.

What name to take, though? He couldn’t ask China for one again. And he was still the king of the old dynasty, so he couldn’t use his family heritage or something. He had to choose a new name out of the blue. And so after a while the Korean king, or I guess some of his ministers, came up with some old historical name which could fit the bill.

The original name, Joseon, had come from a Bronze Age Kingdom. Well, “kingdom”, more like some chieftain and a couple hundred serfs. Way later in Korean history, around the first century AD, Chinese historians talk of a series of small chiefdoms in the southern half of the Korean peninsula. Specifically they talked of three: Mahan, Byeonhan and Jinhan. The “han” part of the names was written phonetically, using different Chinese letters which sound like /han/, but eventually, and for no good reason, Chinese historians settled in using the letter 韓, which as I mentioned before refers originally to a fairly old Chinese fiefdom, and later a middle sized kingdom. It also happens to be a common surname. As for why those Korean kingdoms were called ‘something-han’, it’s anyone’s guess. The best scholarly theory seems to be that ‘han’ comes from the same root as Mongolian ‘khan’, i.e. boss.

So anyway, the reasoning here seems to be that the Korean king wanted a new name, he looked at the history books, couldn’t find any name which hadn’t been used before or that had any bad connotation, so eventually settled with this word which was kinda Korean so “anyway let’s get done with this already gentlemen I didn’t want to do this on the first place can I go home now?”. The name chosen was 大韓帝國,대한제국Dae Han Je Guk, “Great Han Empire”. ‘Empire’ being also the formal titles of China and Japan and the time. So, equality, independence.

That was 1897. In 1910 Japan annexed Korea anyway and thought the whole thing was stupid. Under Japanese rule Korea was used by its previous name, Joseon (Chosen in Japanese). North Korea, being communist and down to earth, also calls itself Joseon. Well, the Democratic People’s Republic of Joseon. China calls North Korea Chaoxian, which is the Mandarin pronunciation of Joseon.

South Korea though as a liberal democratic country had to do the virtue signaling thing, so they chose to signal that South Korea was a return to how things were just before the Japanese invaded. Just without the king. So South Korea chose the exact same name chosen back in 1897. Just changed a letter, “emperor” for “people”. So instead of 大韓帝國,대한제국 it’s 大韓民國 대한민국.

And that’s the name today. South Korea has this weird ahistorical name, born of lazy Chinese historiography two millennia ago, but with a rich narrative of independence and victimization. North Korea just keeps the old name of the 1392-1897 dynasty. China and Japan call each country by their chosen names. But of course North and South Korea *themselves* don’t recognize the other’s right to exist, so they call it by their own chosen names + north or south. South Korea calls North Korea, 北韓 북한 Buk Han “North Han”, while North Korea calls the South 南朝鮮 남조선 Nam Joseon “South Joseon”. China used to follow North Korean usage, not anymore.

Amusingly Taiwan and Hong Kong mostly follow South Korean usage, as good fellow USG vassals.

And yes, the Korean script, “Hangul” is Han-gul, Han letters. In the North is, you guessed it, Joseon-gul.

Long story short: history is fun, languages are different, and the difference allows for different ways of doing what everybody wants to do anyway: fight.

The State Religion

This is David Irving. A man famous for writing a hagiography of Adolf Hitler. And by heaping untold amounts of scorn to Winston Churchill. A man with all the balls in the world, the probably most prominent denier of the narrative that underpins the international power structure, the world order of our day.
A man who has suffered dearly for his ideas, a man who was thrown in jail for being too jealous in his labor as a historian.

That man, the man who was thrown in jail and lost much of his fortune because he denied the Holocaust. That man asked God for forgiveness because he said a mean word to a feral black in Florida.